f meats_ and
_Fasting_, concerning _Indulgences_, and concerning _Vows_, Although
such be his bold and impudent assertion, whoever reads the book in its
entirety will find the facts to be otherwise. If, however, leisure be
wanting for the reading of trifles of this description, I will briefly
lay the matter open. But before I approach it, I think well to make
three prefatory remarks.

First, in this matter contempt of the Emperor's edict[C] cannot be laid
to my charge. For I understand it was published May 6th, 1522, whereas
this book was printed long before: and that at Basle, where no Imperial
edict had up to the time been made known, whether publicly or privately.

[Footnote C: Edict of the Emperor Charles V.: 1523.]

Secondly, although in that book I do not teach dogmas of Faith, but
formulae for speaking Latin; yet there are matters intermixed by the
way, which conduce to good manners. Now if, when a theme has been
previously written down in German or French, a master should teach his
boys to render the sense in Latin thus: _Utinam nihil edant praeter
allia, qui nobis hos dies pisculentos invexerunt_. ("Would they might
eat naught but garlic, who imposed these fish-days upon us.") Or this:
_Utinam inedia pereant, qui liberos homines adigunt ac jejunandi
necessitatem_. ("Would they might starve to death, who force the
necessity of fasting on free men.") Or this: _Digni sunt ut fumo pereant
qui nobis Dispensationum ad Indulgentiarum fumos tam care vendunt_.
("They deserve to be stifled to death who sell us the smokes (pretences)
of dispensations and indulgences at so dear a rate.") Or this: _Utinam
vere castrentur, qui nolentes arcent a matrimonio_. ("Would they might
indeed be made eunuchs of, who keep people from marrying, against their
will")--I ask, whether he should be forced to defend himself, for having
taught how to turn a sentence, though of bad meaning, into good Latin
words? I think there is no one so unjust, as to deem this just.

Thirdly, I had in the first instance to take care what sort of person it
should be to whom I ascribe the speech in the dialogue. For I do not
there represent a divine preaching, but good fellows having a gossip
together. Now if any one is so unfair as to refuse to concede me the
quality of the person represented, he ought, by the same reasoning, to
lay it to my charge, that there one Augustine (I think) disparages the
Stoics' principle of the _honestum_, and prefers the sect